Conservatives like to accuse progressives of being soft on terror and crime. Now we have proof that it’s actually the other way around.

Adam Gadahn is a 34-year-old American Islamic jihadist who advises al-Qaida on media and cultural issues. He is seen in a recently posted YouTube video encouraging Muslims in America to buy guns and kill “Zionists” and “crusaders.”

“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms,” Gadahn explains. “You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?”

Could there be a clearer warning? Here’s a professional terrorist telling wannabe terrorists the best way to kill Americans is to buy a weapon privately because no questions will be asked.

Terrorists and criminals know America is awash with easily obtainable firearms because Republicans and some Democrats are terrified of the National Rifle Association. To the NRA and its lickspittles in Congress, anyone should have access to as many guns as they want, regardless of who or what they are.

But shortly after the Columbine High School massacre, the NRA itself called for expanded background checks.

“We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere, for anyone,” the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre told Congress in 1999.

After the slaughters at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora and Newtown, with public opinion against it, the NRA reversed itself. “I just don’t think that law-abiding people want every gun sale in the country to be under the thumb of the federal government,” LaPierre told the Senate Judiciary Committee last January.

Wrong. Law-abiding people do want expanded federal background checks. Some 90 percent of Americans think they’re reasonable. So do three-quarters of the NRA’s own members.

That’s because background checks work. Nearly 2 million felons and mentally ill persons have been prevented from buying guns because of background checks. How many lives were saved as a result? How many mass shootings were avoided?

It’s not just the vast majority of Americans who want expanded background checks. So do the most all law enforcement authorities, who see them as a critical tool in protecting the public and police officers.

The National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, a group of nine major professional police organizations, wants Congress to pass expanded background checks along with upgrading the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

“Congress must act now to curb rising gun violence by passing legislation requiring background checks on all firearms sales…,” said Baltimore Police Chief Jim Johnson, chairman of the group.

So why did 46 mostly Republican senators ignore this overwhelming public and police opinion when they blocked expanded background checks on Wednesday?

The answer is simple. The NRA is the lobbyist for gun manufacturers and, like most all other commercial trade organizations, the NRA’s only concern is protecting the profits of gun makers.

To that end, the NRA pumps millions into the re-election campaigns of its toadies on Capitol Hill and threatens the re-election of uncooperative lawmakers, while pumping out misinformation and lies to confuse and frighten gun owners. For example, LaPierre claims expanded background checks will lead to a “national registry” of gun owners. In fact, the defeated legislation specifically bans any such lists.

What about the 8,000 people killed by guns every year? They’re just a cost of doing business. Profits always trump public safety at the NRA, which explains why congressional conservatives are so soft on terror and crime.

Kevin Foley is a public relations executive, author and writer who lives in Kennesaw.

Kevin, when the title of your column is fallacious, it pretty much tells the story about the body of it.

Terrorists do not normally use guns. Remember the 1993 WTC bombing? Remember 9-11? How about the recent tragedy at the Boston Marathon? so, exactly how is defeating an unconstitutional and useless background check bill going to enable terrorists? Answer: It will not.

Criminals do not submit to background checks or any other law, so , again, how is the failure of the background check going to enable them? Answer: it is not.

Kevin, you really need to put more thought into what you write. Your stuff generally comes out pretty lame, if not totally inane and way off base.

Terrorists don't normally use guns? Tell that to officer Sean Collier's family. He was the MIT policeman gunned down by the Boston terrorists. Tell that to the Marines in Afghanistan fighting AQ terrorists with guns every day.

Nettie Helen Stemm

|

April 22, 2013

@anonymous. Sorry, but I did not say terrorists never use guns, I said seldom. Further, even though they subsequebntly used a gun, their intitial attack was not predicated on the use of a gun. Nor was any of the other examples I mentioned.

As to the Marines in Afghanistan, they are fighting a war. Your statement about that has nothing to do with the subject about which we are writing. And even there. the most effective weapon the enemy uses is IED's.

CobbCoGuy

|

April 19, 2013

The timing is impeccable.

Just this week, Victor Davis Hanson wrote a piece called "1984 29." In it he discusses, among other things, how "Anecdote, the age-old enemy of logic, now reigns supreme and trumps induction — as if the exception is always proof of the rule..."

And you cite this dreg's Youtube video as "proof."

Your other column regarding how you feel sorry for conservative blacks was quite a display of pretzel logic. And now, this?

Also, that "2 million" number has been debunked and that 90 percent poll is not the entire story. Another recent Gallup poll disclosed that 4 percent see gun control as a major problem. As someone else put it, support for gun control is wide, but not deep. Or, "Yeah, I'm for gun control, but I'm not gonna lose a lot of sleep over it."

You are so right on, and I predict that the two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing who killed an MIT police officer and engaged in a gun battle with police got their guns and ammo without any background checks. We are so stupid to allow any terrorist to buy guns off Craigslist, Armslist, at a gun show, whatever. Losers crying about their second amendment rights could care less about the rights of the rest of us Americans to live with the pursuit of happiness, meaning we don't have to worry that any whack job or terrorist is out arming themselves.

This column is laughable in the wake of events in liberal Watertown, Mass., where terrified residents huddled in the foyers of their apartments together watching helplessly as Muslim terrorists duke it out with area law enforcement. These poor sheep could be heard yelling out to their neighbors, "Anyone got a rifle? Anyone got a gun?" Of course, no one did Kev. Not a one could protect themselves against terrorists who came to the U.S. to perpetrate their Islamic supremicism on innocents. Adam Ghadan gets his two seconds of fame in your column, but he's been enabled by your liberal brethren, who refuse to see the truth of this decade in history. Now you use the comments of a liar and terrorist to force your argument against our Constitutional right to bear arms. You are on the wrong side of history. Let's see you say it: the perps of the Boston bombing were MUSLIM terrorists, radicalized from childhood to assert their particular religion on us or die trying. They don't need a gun show to make their bombs, Kevin.

Kevin is the poster boy of the new American... a frightened buffoon paralyzed by group think and political correctness. Hyper sensitized to and in support of all thinking that undermines self determination, self reliance, and above all, independence.

Our Man In Powder Springs

Devlin Adams

|

April 19, 2013

Foley, your rant can be summed up in two words.

SOUR GRAPES.

It's time the liberals took the advice they have been giving conservatives ever since the election.

*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides